Sony takes MMOs in a bad direction for gamers.

[Drasca]

I knew it... and Sony's the first to legitimize virtual commodities, and therefore, regulate and gain profits off them. Heh heh. It was an open frontier and underworld before, and now that I think about it... I wouldn't be surprised when governments try to tax sale of virtual commodities as soon as they learn how.

[jahcs]

I don't view it as gambling. They can't sell something they don't have yet, unless the buyer is a moron.

The person farming for items/cash/xp is gambling on each item drop that he will get what he wants so he can sell it. He is not selling the chance to get something, which is what gambling is.

[Brista]

I don't view it as gambling either

It's a stretch. Say killing a dragon which might if you're lucky drop an uber item but might if you're unlucky drop a poor item. Could not an equally valid argument be drawn to sport where shooting at the target might score a goal or might miss. Something can be a gamble in the broader sense, ie just taking a chance, without being gambling in the strict, legally-controlled sense

It's funny that one of the first things many of us look at, me included, is the legal position. The pattern in these games to date has been to not define the legal position. Both sides seem out-right scared to do anything that would allow a judge to define what they can and can't do. The proprietary companies avoid chasing eula-infringers through the legal system, instead either issuing in-game bans or simply ignoring problems. The re-sellers, if stymied, usually hop to greener pastures or find some other avenue to exploit that uses their skills (gaming) rather than skills they don't have (legal)

People love to argue and I think that's why the law seems so attractive to us lay-folk: we can construct a convincing argument, that sounds like it should be good law, and then start feeling brave about our chances in court. Often as not, people who go into court feeling brave feel a lot less brave once they hear the other side's counter-points. Most lawyers will hedge about your chances before a case. At best they tell you something is likely or probable. They particularly hedge around new areas of law.

So is farming uber loot gambling? Legally, no one knows, and no one will know until a precedent is set and if history is repeated both sides will avoid setting such a precedent as long as they possibly can. And even if a precedent is set, all a lawyer would have to do in a subsequent case to convince a judge that the precedent is not binding is to persuade the judge that the individual circumstances of the case are different enough to deserve consideration on their own merits. If you run your car into the back of someone there's a high degree of legal certainty about what will happen, because there's been so many court cases before. If you have some distinguishing circumstance, such as rushing your expectant wife to hospital, then almost certainly that's come up before and there's precedent covering that situation. But even if court cases start happening with frequency in this area and there's no reason to think that they will, it will be a very long time before it's possible for a lawyer to say "if you took a screenie of the loot rolls showing you won and someone else swiped it, you'll win your case"

I do think this change will have other effects. I think it will depress the reselling market by allowing lots more people to enter. I suspect it's the herald of things to come and that Exchange servers will be normal for all such games within a few years. I think people who have avoided reselling because it's tacky (like me) will be much more prepared to resell now. I think the majority will still feel that $15 a month is enough and paying $3 for a better sword is silly. But at the moment there's a widespread stigma about e-bayers (you have to pay because you suck too much to make it drop yourself). I suspect that isn't particularly true now and will become even less true in the future when people take choices like "Shall I do a Saturday job for items or shall I play wow and grind for items on Saturday morning?" and simply make a decision based on the effectiveness of the respective choices with no moral or taste considerations

[Jarulf]

I don't view it as gambling.  They can't sell something they don't have yet, unless the buyer is a moron.

The person farming for items/cash/xp is gambling on each item drop that he will get what he wants so he can sell it.  He is not selling the chance to get something, which is what gambling is.
[right][snapback]74729[/snapback][/right]

It is quite irellevant what you (or me, or anyone else) consider gambling. What matters is what the law consider as gambling. Lets look at the swedish law for example. Since it is in Swedish, I will have to do my best in translating legal language, which can always be a bit problematic, I will do my best.

Basically, the swedish "lotterilagen" (I think it is more lottery than gambling, lottery exist as an english word right? Gambling is included as part of it though) says that:

"3§ What is meant by lottery in this law is any activity were one or more participants, with or without a stake, can get a reward/win something of a higher value than that of the other participants"

Since you can transform your found items into money (through selling them) and items are found randomly, that is, not everyone will get the same ones, I can't see how it would NOT be covered by the law.

EDIT: For the record, the law of course goes into greater detail defining and covering various forms of gambling and such. It also list situations were it is allowed to do it withouth permision (it is a govermental body that gives such permisions in Sweden), I could not fit in WoW to any such, not even close.

[Thecla]

Rather irrelevant though. There is for shure a luck element since you get loot in random ways. I mean, gambling on horses is not just luck, knowledge and skill about the horses, their current status and so on is of course important, yet it is gambling (at least in Sweden).
[right][snapback]74667[/snapback][/right]

Well, I'm not so sure it's irrelevant. I certainly defer to you on Swedish gambling law, but the point about mentioning bridge is that it's a game in which there a large element of randomness (just as there is with item drops in WoW), but AFAIK rubber bridge has been considered a game of skill in both US (at least California) and UK law (unlike betting on horses, or even poker). Actually, acquiring items in WoW strikes me as much less dependent on luck, and much more dependent on time, organization, and some minimal experience than anything in bridge.

[Thecla]

I knew it... and Sony's the first to legitimize virtual commodities.
[right][snapback]74697[/snapback][/right]

Not the first though...for example

Project Entropia

[Jarulf]

Actually, acquiring items in WoW strikes me as much less dependent on luck, and much more dependent on time, organization, and some minimal experience than anything in bridge.
[right][snapback]74775[/snapback][/right]

As far as I know, the actual items you get of specific monsters is COMPLETELY random within the possible ones.

[Occhidiangela]

As far as I know, the actual items you get of specific monsters is COMPLETELY random within the possible ones.
[right][snapback]74780[/snapback][/right]

Not a big deal, the Nevada Gaming commission has to oversee the pay out rates and legitimacy of the computer generated slot machine pay out algorithms.

The Random Number generator in a computer game would probably need to withstand similar scrutiny if the finding of items is legally considered gambling.

I can see game companies not wanting to go there.

Occhi

[jahcs]

The finding of the items may be gambling, I'm not arguing that point.

The sale and purchase of the items is not. The seller has an item, you want it, money is exchanged, the item is handed over. This is a sale, not a gamble.

If you win a new bike in a raffle you were gambling. If you then sell that bike to a third party you are selling, the third party is buying, and no one is gambling.

[wakim]

The finding of the items may be gambling, I'm not arguing that point.
[right][snapback]74811[/snapback][/right]

The finding of items is gambling? That is merely a random event, no? Does the occurrence of a random event define gambling? A man walking down a beach spies a ten-dollar bill in the sand. Wouldn't this finding of an item, for our purposes, be considered a random event and not gambling? Has the man by finding an item of necessity engaged in gambling?

The sale and purchase of the items is not.  The seller has an item, you want it, money is exchanged, the item is handed over.  This is a sale, not a gamble.
[right][snapback]74811[/snapback][/right]

Is it therefore possible for a casino to operate its normal business without anyone being engaged in gambling simply by having slot machines and roulette tables pay out in tokens, or chips, and then provide a separate transaction of buying these chips from its patrons? Where did the gambling take place? The random occurrence of a dice roll, or whatever, rewards with chips. Chips have little or no intrinsic value. The chips are bought in a separate transaction that is a sale based upon an arbitrary, or market value assigned by the casino.

Regardless of the detour necessary to understand gambling, or whether it is even necessary to first determine whether it is skill, or luck involved in bluffing your opponent with a potential inside straight showing before recognizing that gambling has occurred, the original point, or question, of Whether a game should be engaged in for fun or for profit? seems to have been lost in speculation of What governmental body's laws and regulations cover games such as video poker? or, more trenchantly phrased: Will Sony name its new servers Potawatomi and Oneida and move them to Nevada?

[whyBish]

The finding of items is gambling? That is merely a random event, no? Does the occurrence of a random event define gambling? A man walking down a beach  spies a ten-dollar bill in the sand. Wouldn't this finding of an item, for our purposes, be considered a random event and not gambling? Has the man by finding an item of necessity engaged in gambling?

But what if the man paid $15/month to be allowed to walk along the beach, where it was known that occasionally there would be $10 note/s. Surely that now IS gambling?

Anyway, I think that the gambling/not gambling issue is a side-track. If (when?) enough cases in this area come to court I'm guessing that specific legislation would eventually be developed to cover it, much like the anti-spam laws etc.

[jahcs]

I will not argue whether the finding of items in a game is gambling or not. I said it MAY be gambling.

The sale of items, that you already have in your virtual inventory, is not gambling. This is all I am attempting to say. If you own something or have the rights to use something and you decide to sell it (and your user agreement allows it) that is your right.

I do not follow your casino example as it relates to the issue of selling the use of virtual property. You enter a casino, you buy chips, you place bets on the chance of coming out of that bet with more chips, you cash in any chips you have left. That is gambling. You took a chance that you would make more money than you started with. The casino is taxed on the amount of money it takes in over the amount of money it pays out. The gambler pays taxes on the jackpot he wins (including his orginal bet, they get you coming and going ;) ).

Gambling is different from selling or buying an item. A player has an Uber Sword, he offers it up for sale, you, the buyer, pay for the Uber Sword, the seller gives you the Uber Sword. This is sales, not gambling. You are not paying for the chance of receiving an item, you are paying for the item you want and which you recieve. Taxes may be incurred but they would be applicable sales taxes, not gambling taxes.

edit: emphasis added to the word MAY

[wakim]

I do not follow your casino example ...
[right][snapback]74855[/snapback][/right]

The casino metaphor here is used to illustrate the similarity between chips and virtual property in consideration of Sony's announced proposal; neither chips nor pixels are intrinsically of real value and in both cases you would be trading the token in exchange for something considered possessed of real value.

If a casino wouldn't allow you to trade your won chips for money would a casino patron truly be involved in gambling? This is the analogue that Sony's proposal of allowing one to exchange his won virtual property for money evokes. To, I hope, phrase more clearly: If gambling requires the gain or loss of something of value, then removing the item of value removes the ability to gamble - if there are no stakes on the table can it be called gambling? Assigning, or allowing chips, tokens, or pixels a real value allows for the stake that gambling requires. With nothing on the table one can play blackjack all day long and he has engaged in only a game of cards and hasn't gambled. Put a stake on the table and, all other things remaining the same, one is now gambling. No?

[Jarulf]

I will not argue whether the finding of items in a game is gambling or not.  I said it MAY be gambling.

The sale of items, that you already have in your virtual inventory, is not gambling.  This is all I am attempting to say.  If you own something or have the rights to use something and you decide to sell it (and your user agreement allows it) that is your right.

What are you arguing about? What you feel should be the definition of gambling? What a dictionary says gambling is? What the law in various countries define gambling as? The whole discussion about gambling came up since it may be important due to regulations (through laws) and control about gambling. The only way to know what is considered as gambling is to go check the law. What you THINK or FEEL is gambling is irellevant for that. Isolating a small step in the process and claim that is not gambling won't work, that way one could circumvent any law and hence the lawmakers create laws that doesn't fall for such traps.

Of course, if you want to discuss the possible meanings of the world "gamble" to you and others, fine, do that, but don't drag in WoW then since it is note of much relevancy.

[Malakar]

The difference is that in a Casino, you pay each time you take a chance. In MMORPGs, you typically just pay the $15 a month for unlimited playing time. Not only is $15/month fairly negligible in terms of gambling, it could also be said to be paying for the entertainment of the game as normal, despite whether you engage in the sale of items you receive from "gambling" your time or not.

I do believe the laws against gambling are there to protect compulsive gamblers from themselves. People with these personalities typically ruin themselves financially with gambling. So while the technicalities of current gambling laws may or may not apply, I think it's pretty safe to say the intention of the laws do not, in most games.

However there are certain games, like Lineage 1, where you can engage in "real" gambling. By that I mean you could pay to take a chance at getting more money. Games like these could present a problem. Even if the sale of items is technically not allowed, it will still happen. So then should you disallow gambling in the game completely? That could ruin some fundamental game mechanics, or maybe not. But who is to make this decision? Law makers who have no clue on the game design, or game designers who care more about their game than law crap?

Here's some more food for thought. One of my friends from Lin1 was a compulsive gambler. He'd go to casinos and squander all his money away. But when it came to the game, even though he had the chance to gamble, he didn't do it. In fact, he wouldn't even gamble on improving items he didn't even buy with real money.

[Jarulf]

The difference is that in a Casino, you pay each time you take a chance. In MMORPGs, you typically just pay the $15 a month for unlimited playing time. Not only is $15/month fairly negligible in terms of gambling, it could also be said to be paying for the entertainment of the game as normal, despite whether you engage in the sale of items you receive from "gambling" your time or not.

Well, as I said, the swedish gambling laws doesn't care about the stake, if you have to pay one or not, hence it would not matter what the "purpose" of the payment is or its nature.

I really can't tell if one can avoid having swedish gambling laws apply or not, but it would seem to me that it would very much apply. Obviously the sollution would then be to not sell the game in Sweden I would say. No idea how it would work in other countries.

[Rinnhart]

So, what happens when the servers get rolled back and half a million people lose items worth real world money?

[Guest]

Mythic CEO comments on SOE plans -

http://biz.gamedaily.com/features.asp?arti...=feature&email=

I agree with him.

[Occhidiangela]

Mythic CEO comments on SOE plans -

http://biz.gamedaily.com/features.asp?arti...=feature&email=

I agree with him.
[right][snapback]74909[/snapback][/right]

Sony's response at the end of the article now proves that Sony endorses the idea of some folks paying other folks to play a game for them. Next, I suppose, the CEO of Sony will hire someone to roger his wife for him. Or is that a slippery slope assumption?

Occhi

[Malakar]

I think this is more along the lines of legalizing prostitution to have greater control over it.